Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not worth it (Score 1) 232

by vux984 (#47759959) Attached to: New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

Until MS forces OEMs to sell a clean copy of Windows with zero third-party crapware, I won't even consider it.

So let me get this straight. You'll install linux on bare metal without any complaint, but if you had to do that for another OS it would be reason enough that you won't even consider it.

How is that not hypocrisy?

. I've been a Linux user since 1998, and since then, have seen no compelling reason

Good for you. From programming my harmony remote, to running quickbooks, to watching netflix, to Microsoft Office, to playing many of the games I like there are lots of compelling reasons that keep me running windows on at least some of my computers.

Fact is, when you buy a new Windows PC, it's largely unusable what with all the Kaptalistic crapware and bloat already bringing the system down below peak performance.

Fact is, that's not even true. There's plenty of decent OEMs and venders out there. Plus whitebox system builders. Plus the fact that if your reinstalling the OS anyway, you can do the exact custom windows install you want just about as easily as any Linux distro.

This is a black eye for the Windows brand.

Android phones ship with all kinds of shit pre-installed by OEMs too. Even the google nexus -- given that I even consider stuff like "Hangouts" and the "gmail app" to be unwanted bloat.

Comment: Re:Backward-thinking by the DMV (Score 1) 439

by vux984 (#47759537) Attached to: California DMV Told Google Cars Still Need Steering Wheels

Any car that allows the driver to take "immediate physical control" makes the roads unsafer for all.

Yeah, it does sound pretty risky to take control of a car mid maneuver, at speed.

However, a control transition while stopped is reasonable, and there are lots of reasons that a car should support a driver.

Navigating around a major traffic incident. (Lets say hypothetically you are on a divided highway approaching a double bridge and one of the bridges becomes unpassable. What happens?

Police for example may divide the remaining bridge into two directions, and divert traffic onto it. Cars will need to turn around, go back up the highway they way they came (against its usual direction), probably use a restricted emergency vehicle access to cross over to the other side of the highway, and then be directed to drive in what would normally be an oncoming lane of the other route accross the bridge, before being diverted back to the usual side of the highway via another restricted access road... its going to be a long while before a driverless car is ready for THAT.

Other uses for manual controls -- off road event parking in ad hoc overflow lots, moving the vehicle after an accident that has damaged the sensors etc but it's still otherwise drivable.

  I'd love to see a google driverless car handle downtown Calcutta... where even if every car was driverless and "wirelessly communicating with eachother" there'd still be throngs of people, bicycles, livestock, and the only thing the other cars around it would report is "yup, its a huge mess here too".

Or even a major american city when half of downtown is shut down for an event and there are hordes of people on the streets... and police are directing traffic.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 272

by vux984 (#47743003) Attached to: Among Gamers, Adult Women Vastly Outnumber Teenage Boys

A "gamer" is someone who plays games.

That's why pro-football players, the elderly Chinese men in a remote village playing Go, the seniors at the community center playing bingo, and the participants in the office hockey pool are all "gamers" too, right? They play games.

No, of course not. The vernacular use of the word "Gamers" doesn't include them.

And neither does it include grandmothers playing Candy Crush, no matter how many of them there are. That's a new thing. Its a big thing, but they aren't gamers.

But "gamer" means nothing.

Of course it means something. We use the word all the time and generally understand each other. A 'gamer' is someone who plays at least a subset of video games that meet certain complexity or difficulty thresholds, and considers them an important part of their identity.

You'd be included as a gamer even if you only play platformers. You can also be a gamer who only plays FPS. Or RTS, or MMOs or racers or roguelikes.

But it doesn't normally include people who only play casual mobile games, even if they play them a LOT. Nor if you only play chess, not even if its chess on a computer. And soccer? Maybe if its FIFA 2014, but not if your on a field somewhere with an actual ball.

As for your Mom... maybe. She plays a 'recognized' class of games to be gamer, and she's finished them... so if she considers it an important part of her identity etc then sure, she's a gamer.

My mom, though? With her Candy Crush on her ipad. No. She's not.

That's not what people actually mean when they say gamer, just as they don't mean people who are obsessed with golf.

 

Comment: Re:Horrible summary (Score 1) 272

by causality (#47742157) Attached to: Among Gamers, Adult Women Vastly Outnumber Teenage Boys

It'd be good if culture could refocus on respecting the notion of growing up, wisdom, and respect for elders. (and get off my lawn, too)

Yes, it would, because the infantile mind doesn't recognize a power grab or the early steps of establishing a soft tyranny when they happen before its eyes.

I'd recommend a copy of Jeffrey Grupp's book The Telescreen if you want to know what's really been done to this culture.

Comment: Re:They're not gamers. (Score 2) 272

by causality (#47742127) Attached to: Among Gamers, Adult Women Vastly Outnumber Teenage Boys

It's just an oblique attack on men.

It is, actually, and it's a subtle one. In the face of all evidence, the dogma of political correctness dictates that men and women are exactly the same and should want the same things. Therefore, using this twisted excuse for logic, anything that is done primarily by men must be portrayed as inherently sexist and actively excluding of women. That's what happens when masses of soft-minded people use low-quality logic on "sacred" conclusions they refuse to question.

The idea that it's good enough to have open access for anyone who wants to do something (and when has a wider variety of games been more available than now?) and then those who are interested can participate is anathema to this mentality. There's nothing for them to do in that scenario, no soapbox to climb on, no social engineering to perform, no downtrodden victim to pretend to champion (while actually changing nothing).

You may find this an interesting article. They were going to metaphorically roast a Harvard professor for daring to suggest men and women have different interests and priorities. He hadn't actually done anything to discriminate against women and showed no hostility towards them. He just didn't hold the "correct" viewpoint.

Comment: Re:They're not gamers. (Score 2) 272

by causality (#47742033) Attached to: Among Gamers, Adult Women Vastly Outnumber Teenage Boys

My wife plays a lot of Hay Day. I don't see a lot of true, real life concerning issues there. I guess I don't smell the magic sauce that makes women playing games any different.

Identity politics has taught people to exaggerate these differences, that it's "normal" to worry about things like which demographic is doing what activity. It's just so damned useful for divide-and-conquer purposes for anything from voting to marketing. TFA is merely following what the rest of the media has done for a long time now.

If women want to play games, they will. If women don't, then they won't. To me it's as simple as that. The "magic sauce" is the bullshit concerns of politicians, media personalities, and marketers. It's not normal to share in them. One has to be conditioned to do that.

Comment: Re:They're not gamers. (Score 1) 272

by causality (#47742005) Attached to: Among Gamers, Adult Women Vastly Outnumber Teenage Boys

I respect and approve of your reluctance to be tracked.

I also suggest that clinging to that reluctance will block you from much of modern society. The isolation can be psychologically harmful over time.

That depends on whether you have a life in meatspace including meaningful quality time with loved ones.

If you do, you'll never miss the online tracking.

The principle here is that generally anything pathological, like the desire to track people without regard for their consent, requires some kind of unfulfilled need or other problem to provide fertile soil in which it can fester and grow. Otherwise it wouldn't be tolerated because what it offers in return is not tempting.

Comment: TFA is Pointless (Score 1) 172

by Chelloveck (#47736783) Attached to: Google Wants To Test Driverless Cars In a Simulation

The article is pointless. Okay, Google is trying to replace the current "controlled" road test with a simulator. The article goes on to say how wonderful simulators are. So what? It says *nothing* about the current regulations. What are they intended to test? Are they done once per model? For every firmware revision? Every individual vehicle? Are they meant to be fully exhaustive or are they more on the order of the driving test a person must take to get a license? Without knowing what the current tests are there's no way to judge whether a simulator is an adequate substitution.

Pure personal speculation: I suspect that the main goal of the testing requirement is to give a warm fuzzy feeling to a non-technical person. It lets them see a tangible object responding to tangible threats. It probably puts the car through a series of common scenarios and some uncommon but easily imagined dangers, so the non-technical human can see the car dodge obstacles and walk away confident that the robot responds like a human would. If that's the case, a simulator will never be sufficient since it's not really a test of the car's performance, but a test of the human's confidence in the car.

Comment: Re:tl;dr (Score 1) 87

by vux984 (#47733761) Attached to: Researchers Hack Gmail With 92 Percent Success Rate

Although I agree with you in general, the thing is that you need to think of what the effects of a false positive are. Imagine starting up your game of solitaire and then seeing a Gmail-like login window.

I'm not an android dev.. but on platforms I do write for, any app can determine the name of the foreground process/task.

So the worst that happens, is an oddly timed credentials box for the app you WERE using. That's going to set off far fewer alarm bells than you would think.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Working...